(3 of 6)
At issue is not just whether the inspectors have had a fair shot in two months at uncovering the suspect weapons or verifying that they are gone. It's whether the whole U.N. process feels legitimate or like a sham. While the Bush Administration contends it needs no more reason for war, it engaged in inspections diplomacy in order to give potential allies a way to join up on their own terms. Washington is now seen as wiggling out of its commitment. European governments want to be able to convince the world, especially the Muslim part, that all other options were exhausted before force was used. And if they are to lead their reluctant populations into war, they need the cover of an inspections process broadly deemed genuine. "If people have the impression that going the multilateral U.N. way was only a tactic and Bush's decision has already been taken," says Friedbert Pfluger, foreign affairs spokesman for Germany's opposition Christian Democratic Union, "there will be a problem in Europe." Large numbers of Europeans believe the timetable for war is driven not by Iraq's behavior but by the U.S. desire to attack before Iraq's desert weather heats up to make warfare more difficult.
3 THE U.N. MUST BE THE ONE TO AUTHORIZE WAR
Back in November, when the U.S. squeezed out unanimous approval for Resolution 1441 reinstating inspections, the language specified "serious consequences" if Iraq were to be found in material breach of the terms. Ever since, the U.S. has insisted it needs no further U.N. vote to march on Baghdad when it sees fit. But for Europe, the key to the whole diplomatic enterprise is to keep the U.S. under the U.N. umbrella. Aides to British Prime Minister Tony Blair say he wants to wring a U.S. commitment for a second resolution from Bush when they meet at Camp David this week. Even in the most pro-war country, Britain, 77% of citizens in one survey said they would oppose joining a U.S.-led war without a U.N. blessing.
Yet seeking that blessing will set off a fierce dogfight. France, which long demanded a second resolution, now says it might veto any attempt to pass one so soon. Germany, while it has no veto, takes over the chairmanship of the Council in February, and the government of Gerhard Schroder is committed to standing against war. His coalition partners in the Green Party can cause serious trouble for Schroder's thin majority if he bows to U.S. pressure. "We committed ourselves to say no," says Christian Strobele, a stalwart Green pacifist who nearly brought down the government when Schroder sent troops to Afghanistan. "That can only mean that even on the Security Council, we cannot consider giving our assent to a war."
The Bush team would be happy to have an explicit resolution if possible but say they're ready to fight alone--with just a "coalition of the willing"--if the U.N. doesn't step up. They won't even try for a second vote unless they know they can win, since defeat could damage prospects for pulling together an ad hoc alliance.